transkribus_label_createCreate a label with a custom name and hex color to tag and organize documents in Transkribus. Assign distinct colors to categories for quick visual identification.
Create a new label.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Label name | |
| color | No | Label color (hex code) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description simply says 'Create a new label,' which aligns with the annotation readOnlyHint=false indicating a write operation. However, it does not add any behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as side effects, required permissions, or what happens if a label with the same name exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise (one sentence). However, it could include additional useful information without being verbose, so it's efficient but not optimally informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the purpose of labels in Transkribus or relate to sibling tools, leaving the agent without sufficient context for proper usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds no extra meaning, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (create) and resource (label), which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_label_update or transkribus_label_assign_documents, so it's clear but lacks distinction.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_label_update or transkribus_label_assign_documents. No prerequisites or context provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.